Judge Rules Wealthy Child Rapist Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison; No (1 Viewer)

[chet]

Disgusting

 

[jon_mx]

Did not realize the purpose of jail was so you could. Fare well.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Shocking story, but that is a tough read. Written like ####.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

pay off pending....

 

[Todd Andrews]

Typical that a rich banker type abuser would get special treatment.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Typical that a rich banker type abuser would get special treatment.

You misspelled unemployed trust fund recipient.

 

[NCCommish]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

 

[Rove!]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

It's the logic that's flawed...

 

[NCCommish]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

It's the logic that's flawed...

Which logic? She is allegedly going by a pre-trial report that isn't attached. The DA asked for probation. Her state guidelines stress treatment over incarceration. Personally I give him jail time but this isn't a completely out of left field ruling,

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

It's the logic that's flawed...

Which logic? She is allegedly going by a pre-trial report that isn't attached. The DA asked for probation. Her state guidelines stress treatment over incarceration. Personally I give him jail time but this isn't a completely out of left field ruling,

I agree that people who commit this sort of crime should spend some time in prison, but if you actually read all the way through the article, this outcome apparently isn't that unusual for Delaware. I have a problem with the way the law is written, but that's not the fault of the judge or the DA.

 

[Johnny Rock]

A 6'4" 275 lb man gets probation and his two toddler children get their lives turned upside down. Sentencing precedent or not, why is the female judge worried about this guy instead of the children?!

 

[McGarnicle]

There are lots of criminals who are sick and need treatment, but we don't have the resources, so we lock them in a cage instead. I would argue that if that's going to be our policy, that child molesters might as well be executed, castrated, or spend life in prison, because odds are great that they will re-offend once released. The typical 10 or 20-year sentence doesn't really serve any purpose other than a temporary punishment and merely a delaying of future crimes.

This guy being part of the DuPont family obviously has connections. The DuPonts in Delaware are like the Kennedys. People should be outraged that he's getting special treatment, but it's just another illustration of the system failing victims of sex abuse.

 

[3C's]

Typical that a rich banker type abuser would get special treatment.

You misspelled unemployed trust fund recipient.

Hopefully the mother and kids are the recipient of all or the majority of that fund via lawsuit. Poor guy might have to get a job. With a rape on his record.

 

[whoknew]

A 6'4" 275 lb man gets probation and his two toddler children get their lives turned upside down. Sentencing precedent or not, why is the female judge worried about this guy instead of the children?!

That doesn't seem like an either/or thing. I reckon she's worried about the children also.

 

[NCCommish]

There are lots of criminals who are sick and need treatment, but we don't have the resources, so we lock them in a cage instead. I would argue that if that's going to be our policy, that child molesters might as well be executed, castrated, or spend life in prison, because odds are great that they will re-offend once released. The typical 10 or 20-year sentence doesn't really serve any purpose other than a temporary punishment and merely a delaying of future crimes.

This guy being part of the DuPont family obviously has connections. The DuPonts in Delaware are like the Kennedys. People should be outraged that he's getting special treatment, but it's just another illustration of the system failing victims of sex abuse.

That's the thing. If he got special treatment he got it before now. They reduced the crime so he would plea. They gave him a crime that allowed for probation. The DA asked for probation probably as part of the plea deal. What do you think happens if this guy with all the Dupont money goes to court and fights the charges against the testimony of a 5 year old? Has some barracuda rip the kids apart on the stand? Probably walks scot free. It's a crappy outcome but it may be the best outcome we could get.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

 

[McGarnicle]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

I don't know about all that. What I will say though is that he is clearly guilty and should be castrated.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

The lawsuit claims that Richards raped his daughter, now 11, in 2005 when she was 3. Several times, he entered her bedroom at night while she slept and penetrated her with his fingers while masturbating, said the lawsuit, which includes documents from the criminal case.

Richards told the girl "to keep what he had done to her a secret," but in October 2007 she told her grandmother, who informed Tracy Richards, the lawsuit said. The girl was taken to her pediatrician, whom she told about the abuse, and New Castle County police arrested him that December.

He should be taken out back and shot. Can't believe people other than timschochet are okay with this guy getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[NCCommish]

The lawsuit claims that Richards raped his daughter, now 11, in 2005 when she was 3. Several times, he entered her bedroom at night while she slept and penetrated her with his fingers while masturbating, said the lawsuit, which includes documents from the criminal case.

Richards told the girl "to keep what he had done to her a secret," but in October 2007 she told her grandmother, who informed Tracy Richards, the lawsuit said. The girl was taken to her pediatrician, whom she told about the abuse, and New Castle County police arrested him that December.

He should be taken out back and shot. Can't believe people other than timschochet are okay with this guy getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Not sure anyone said a thing about being OK with it. As I said I would have given him jail time.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Well at least he didn't lock his kids in a car while applying for a job.

 

[fruity pebbles]

The problem wasn't the sentencing, the problem was allowing him to plead to 4th degree rape when his act was 2nd degree rape.

 

[McGarnicle]

The problem wasn't the sentencing, the problem was allowing him to plead to 4th degree rape when his act was 2nd degree rape.

If a crime has just probation as a possible sentence, prolly shouldn't call it rape at all IMO.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Will be very interesting to see what happens when he offends again and is caught.

Many more details here: Du Pont heir faces child sex lawsuit

 

[Rove!]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

It's the logic that's flawed...

Which logic? She is allegedly going by a pre-trial report that isn't attached. The DA asked for probation. Her state guidelines stress treatment over incarceration. Personally I give him jail time but this isn't a completely out of left field ruling,

"Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards was a rare and puzzling rationale,"

"The fact that Jurden expressed concern that prison wasn't right for Richards came as a surprise to defense lawyers and prosecutors"

"Several noted that prison officials can put inmates in protective custody if they are worried about their safety"

 

[Zow]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

/thread

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

/thread

Man found guilty of fingering his 3 year old daughter while jerking off walks free.

/thread

 

[Zow]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

/thread

Man that fingers his 3 year old daughter while jerking off walks free.

/thread

Hint: media portrayals of criminal court proceedings are often disgustingly inaccurate.

 

[fatness]

Will be very interesting to see what happens when he offends again and is caught.

Many more details here: Du Pont heir faces child sex lawsuit

From that one.

The lawsuit argues that statements Richards made while on probation are evidence he admitted in April 2010 to sexually abusing his son. Those assaults began around December 2005, when the boy was 19 months old, and continued for about two years, the lawsuit said.

The revelations came, the lawsuit claims, while Richards was taking a lie detector test, ordered in an attempt to get him to be more forthcoming about his sexual history. Richards told the examiner he "was very concerned that something happened with his son, but that he has repressed the memories.'" He told the examiner he worried that his acts were "similar to what happened with his daughter," the lawsuit said. "But he promised that whatever I did to my son, I will never do it again."

That September, his probation officer informed Superior Court that during the polygraph, "the possibility of sexual contact" with his son "came to light," according to the officer's progress report, filed with the lawsuit.

In a 2012 progress report, another probation officer reminded the court that "there are concerns about Mr. Richards' past offenses concerning his son."

Family man.

 

[Ignoramus]

A 6'4" 275 lb man gets probation and his two toddler children get their lives turned upside down. Sentencing precedent or not, why is the female judge worried about this guy instead of the children?!

Would you feel better if he were only 5'11" 208 lbs?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

It's the logic that's flawed...

Which logic? She is allegedly going by a pre-trial report that isn't attached. The DA asked for probation. Her state guidelines stress treatment over incarceration. Personally I give him jail time but this isn't a completely out of left field ruling,

Spoken like a true extreme* left winger who'd rather coddle a criminal than punish him.

*bolded to emphasize than I am talking about an extreme thinker, not most left wingers or liberals.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

/thread

Man found guilty of fingering his 3 year old daughter while jerking off walks free.

/thread

Well when you say it like that it makes it sound "dirty".

 

[jonessed]

Ah, our weekly knee-jerk sentencing outrage from people with very little knowledge of the facts, the applicable law, or most of the factors the prosecutor might have considered before offering a plea deal. A media and FFA tradition.

/thread

Man found guilty of fingering his 3 year old daughter while jerking off walks free./thread

People outside the justice system generally see the process as one entity meting out a single result. If that result is deemed unfair, broken, biased, etc. then comments reflect that.

The attorneys then come in and try and break it into the individual parts. This process can be informative or self-righteous and pedantic depending on how it's done (or all of the above).

I've known and worked with enough attorneys to see that the latter is very common. I think it's part of the personality that goes with the job.

 

[NCCommish]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

It's the logic that's flawed...

Which logic? She is allegedly going by a pre-trial report that isn't attached. The DA asked for probation. Her state guidelines stress treatment over incarceration. Personally I give him jail time but this isn't a completely out of left field ruling,

Spoken like a true extreme* left winger who'd rather coddle a criminal than punish him.

*bolded to emphasize than I am talking about an extreme thinker, not most left wingers or liberals.

Oh yeah I am so extreme. I actually can read and comprehend the article as written and disagree with the outcome while also understanding how it came about. Ever so extreme.

 

[Slapdash]

Typical that a rich banker type abuser would get special treatment.

You misspelled unemployed trust fund recipient.

Good point, a banker probably wouldn't have even gone to trial.

 

[Clifford]

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

Seems like she followed the guidelines for what he was convicted of.

I have to ask but why is child rape so lightly punished? What constitutes fourth degree and does it involve the age of the victim? How does this compare to non-violent drug-related offenses?

 

[Clifford]

Will be very interesting to see what happens when he offends again and is caught.

Many more details here: Du Pont heir faces child sex lawsuit

From that one.

The lawsuit argues that statements Richards made while on probation are evidence he admitted in April 2010 to sexually abusing his son. Those assaults began around December 2005, when the boy was 19 months old, and continued for about two years, the lawsuit said.

The revelations came, the lawsuit claims, while Richards was taking a lie detector test, ordered in an attempt to get him to be more forthcoming about his sexual history. Richards told the examiner he "was very concerned that something happened with his son, but that he has repressed the memories.'" He told the examiner he worried that his acts were "similar to what happened with his daughter," the lawsuit said. "But he promised that whatever I did to my son, I will never do it again."

That September, his probation officer informed Superior Court that during the polygraph, "the possibility of sexual contact" with his son "came to light," according to the officer's progress report, filed with the lawsuit.

In a 2012 progress report, another probation officer reminded the court that "there are concerns about Mr. Richards' past offenses concerning his son."

Family man.

I don't think treatment can cure pedophiles. Can anyone point to a case where someone had committed a crime, underwent treatment, and claimed to have no desires for children after the treatment?

Everything I have heard about this is the brain becomes hard-wired for kids and nothing else does it for them. IF that is true pedophiles should never be sent to treatment. If our justice system is about protecting the innocent along with reforming the criminals, then we shouldn't be recommending treatment unless we have proof of a cure.

This from WebMD FAQ (I'm sure there are better sources)

Can pedophilia be treated?Yes. Although most experts do not think a person's feelings of pedophilia are curable, therapy may help them manage those feelings and not act on them.

Some patients at high risk of committing sexual offenses may need medications to reduce their sex drive, Blanchard says.

If the feelings are not curable, doesn't that make recommending treatment over incarceration a very dangerous proposition for the children we should be more concerned about protecting?

 

[Clifford]

There are lots of criminals who are sick and need treatment, but we don't have the resources, so we lock them in a cage instead. I would argue that if that's going to be our policy, that child molesters might as well be executed, castrated, or spend life in prison, because odds are great that they will re-offend once released. The typical 10 or 20-year sentence doesn't really serve any purpose other than a temporary punishment and merely a delaying of future crimes.

This guy being part of the DuPont family obviously has connections. The DuPonts in Delaware are like the Kennedys. People should be outraged that he's getting special treatment, but it's just another illustration of the system failing victims of sex abuse.

Victims can self-select castration in some Eastern European countries over incarceration. A lot of them do and cite reasons of that being the only way they can be sure they won't harm more children.

Castration actually makes the most sense, as bizarre as that sounds. You basically eliminate the potential for future crimes, don't incarcerate someone with a mental disorder, and you don't waste a bunch of time trying to treat something that can only be managed, not cured, according to most experts. I think it has to be a choice between that and incarcerations though.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There are lots of criminals who are sick and need treatment, but we don't have the resources, so we lock them in a cage instead. I would argue that if that's going to be our policy, that child molesters might as well be executed, castrated, or spend life in prison, because odds are great that they will re-offend once released. The typical 10 or 20-year sentence doesn't really serve any purpose other than a temporary punishment and merely a delaying of future crimes.

This guy being part of the DuPont family obviously has connections. The DuPonts in Delaware are like the Kennedys. People should be outraged that he's getting special treatment, but it's just another illustration of the system failing victims of sex abuse.

Victims can self-select castration in some Eastern European countries over incarceration. A lot of them do and cite reasons of that being the only way they can be sure they won't harm more children.Castration actually makes the most sense, as bizarre as that sounds. You basically eliminate the potential for future crimes, don't incarcerate someone with a mental disorder, and you don't waste a bunch of time trying to treat something that can only be managed, not cured, according to most experts. I think it has to be a choice between that and incarcerations though.

Death penalty completely eliminates the chance for future crimes

 

[Clifford]

There are lots of criminals who are sick and need treatment, but we don't have the resources, so we lock them in a cage instead. I would argue that if that's going to be our policy, that child molesters might as well be executed, castrated, or spend life in prison, because odds are great that they will re-offend once released. The typical 10 or 20-year sentence doesn't really serve any purpose other than a temporary punishment and merely a delaying of future crimes.

This guy being part of the DuPont family obviously has connections. The DuPonts in Delaware are like the Kennedys. People should be outraged that he's getting special treatment, but it's just another illustration of the system failing victims of sex abuse.

Victims can self-select castration in some Eastern European countries over incarceration. A lot of them do and cite reasons of that being the only way they can be sure they won't harm more children.Castration actually makes the most sense, as bizarre as that sounds. You basically eliminate the potential for future crimes, don't incarcerate someone with a mental disorder, and you don't waste a bunch of time trying to treat something that can only be managed, not cured, according to most experts. I think it has to be a choice between that and incarcerations though.

Death penalty completely eliminates the chance for future crimes

I think if we're really trying to protect victims from future crimes this or castration are the only options.

I just read the 4th degree rape statute and while it technically applies, it really seems geared towards statutory rape. The law:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/II/770

(a) A person is guilty of rape in the fourth degree when the person:

(1) Intentionally engages in sexual intercourse with another person, and the victim has not yet reached that victim's sixteenth birthday; or

(2) Intentionally engages in sexual intercourse with another person, and the victim has not yet reached that victim's eighteenth birthday, and the person is 30 years of age or older, except that such intercourse shall not be unlawful if the victim and person are married at the time of such intercourse; or

(3) Intentionally engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances:

a. The sexual penetration occurs without the victim's consent; or

b. The victim has not reached that victim's sixteenth birthday; or

(4) Intentionally engages in sexual intercourse or sexual penetration with another person, and the victim has reached that victim's sixteenth birthday but has not yet reached that victim's eighteenth birthday and the defendant stands in a position of trust, authority or supervision over the child, or is an invitee or designee of a person who stands in a position of trust, authority or supervision over the child.

(b) Paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section do not apply to a licensed medical doctor or nurse who places 1 or more fingers or an object inside a ###### or ###### for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment or to a law-enforcement officer who is engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties.

Rape in the fourth degree is a class C felony.

71 Del. Laws, c. 285, § 10; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

 

[Clifford]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

 

[Zow]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

He wasn't convicted of all this.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

No you don't. You operate from a POV of ignorance, just like the lawyers do. All you know about the case and the applicable law is what you read about it from a single article that was written with the intention of inflaming opinions and drawing page views, which it has done. Reaching conclusions about stuff like sentencing and resource allocation and protection of the public based on one article is pretty much the opposite of common sense.

 

[Zow]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

No you don't. You operate from a POV of ignorance, just like the lawyers do. All you know about the case and the applicable law is what you read about it from a single article that was written with the intention of inflaming opinions and drawing page views, which it has done. Reaching conclusions about stuff like sentencing and resource allocation and protection of the public based on one article is pretty much the opposite of common sense.

I completely agree with everything, save for the bolded

 

[Clifford]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

No you don't. You operate from a POV of ignorance, just like the lawyers do. All you know about the case and the applicable law is what you read about it from a single article that was written with the intention of inflaming opinions and drawing page views, which it has done. Reaching conclusions about stuff like sentencing and resource allocation and protection of the public based on one article is pretty much the opposite of common sense.

I think misread this as much as you possibly could. But whatever, obviously you're not interested in coming to any sort of understanding of any POV but the one you have. All I really know about this case is that a man admitted to raping his children as part of a plea deal and will receive zero jail time because of his admission.

If you can't stand people reading articles and discussing them why in the ####### hell do you hang out on an internet forum?

 

[Clifford]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

No you don't. You operate from a POV of ignorance, just like the lawyers do. All you know about the case and the applicable law is what you read about it from a single article that was written with the intention of inflaming opinions and drawing page views, which it has done. Reaching conclusions about stuff like sentencing and resource allocation and protection of the public based on one article is pretty much the opposite of common sense.

I completely agree with everything, save for the bolded

Same question for you: if reading people comment on articles enrages you this much, why the #### are you here?

 

[jon_mx]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

No you don't. You operate from a POV of ignorance, just like the lawyers do. All you know about the case and the applicable law is what you read about it from a single article that was written with the intention of inflaming opinions and drawing page views, which it has done. Reaching conclusions about stuff like sentencing and resource allocation and protection of the public based on one article is pretty much the opposite of common sense.

Just because this type of outrage is usually misguided and overblown, does not mean they don't get it right 1 times out of a 100. And this may be that one case.

 

[Christo]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

He wasn't convicted of all this.

Shut it. He's using common sense.

 

[Clifford]

Sorry dudes but your law degrees will never give you sole dominion to comment on cases and their results. If you get enraged about others commenting on cases, maybe stick to your own thread? Seems to be a lot communal felating going on over there.

 

[Zow]

Also as a note to the legal eagles, those of not in the profession do often operate from a POV of common sense while you operate from a POV of knowledge of the system and the law.

While a well-informed opinion definitely leads to a better understanding of the system and why it produces the results that it does,it does not preclude one from a common-sense view of the results of the system. Nor does it prevent a basic comparison of the results with a view to what crime involved more suffering and the corresponding punishments.

If someone in Delaware can receive jail-time for drug possession and distribution, and someone who raped not one but two children over the course of several years receives no jail time, everyone can and should have an opinion about whether Delaware's system of laws actually produce what our society would call justice. Everyone should be able to participate in that debate and express their opinion.

Also this sentence, according to HuffPost, is not common for sex offenders:

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

No you don't. You operate from a POV of ignorance, just like the lawyers do. All you know about the case and the applicable law is what you read about it from a single article that was written with the intention of inflaming opinions and drawing page views, which it has done. Reaching conclusions about stuff like sentencing and resource allocation and protection of the public based on one article is pretty much the opposite of common sense.

I completely agree with everything, save for the bolded

Same question for you: if reading people comment on articles enrages you this much, why the #### are you here?

You actually think that if I were legitimately enraged, I'd used some doofy emoticon to express that rage?

Man, you do believe everything you read.

 

[Christo]

Sorry dudes but your law degrees will never give you sole dominion to comment on cases and their results. If you get enraged about others commenting on cases, maybe stick to your own thread? Seems to be a lot communal felating going on over there.

Enraged? All he did was point out you didn't know the facts.